Exploring muscularity concerns and behaviours among boys and men with probable eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The muscular body ideal and muscularity concerns and behaviors have been posited to be major drivers of eating disorder psychopathology among boys and men. However, there is limited evidence of this, particularly among large, international samples. This study aimed to compare muscularity concerns and behaviors across probable eating disorder diagnoses among a non-clinical sample of boys and men from Canada and the United States. Data from the Study of Boys and Men (N = 937) were analyzed. One-way ANOVAs and post-hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference tests were used to determine differences in mean scores on two commonly used measures of muscularity concerns and behaviors. Participants with probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa and probable bulimia nervosa had significantly greater muscularity concerns and behaviors compared to those with neither condition. However, muscularity concerns and behaviors were similar across these two disorders. Participants with probable binge-eating disorder had significantly lower muscularity concerns and behaviors compared to those with probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa and probable bulimia nervosa. Findings underscore the relevance of muscularity concerns and behaviors among boys and men with eating disorders, particularly anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Future iterations of the diagnostic criterion for these disorders should consider adding a focus on muscularity concerns and behaviors to account for the experiences of boys and men.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".